If people are bothered by ads why not stop visiting those sites? I am not interested to pay to stop ads. As an Indian its pricer to me as well. I don't mind ads if it allows the content creator to publish more. But i do stop visiting sites with craps ads.
Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
221–230 of 472 posts
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#222I've been using Contributor for the last month or so: 1) One needn't turn on all third-party cookies to make it work. Enabling a subset of [*.]doubleclick.com, [*.]doubleclick.net, and [*.]google.com is sufficient. 2) Contributor is the best existing solution to the third-party micropayment problem I've yet encountered. Direct contributions to sites are surely preferable, but not yet practical. Contributor would appe…
Thanks for the rational reply. Some of the cynical and critical comments here strike me as far too idealistic. This seems like a completely reasonable step to take in offering websites money for ad-free content without having to subscribe to individual content. The privacy argument, I can easier get on board with. Why does Google need to still track you if you're not seeing ads? Wasn't the point of ad tracking to get…
Well,
1) contributor doesn't always replace /all/ ads,
2) if you were ever to say, stop paying for Contributor...
3) in order to see what sites ad spots paid for with contributor?
Edit: "We use machine learning to pace how much of your plan is spent each day."
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google has cleverly tricked us into keeping that industry aloft, essentially paying to keep something we hate alive. We hate content creators?
If I want content from content creators, I pay for it. Ads is the old print way of getting paid. Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods. Why are you so focused on ads when it 1. Doesn't make sense if users can just block it and 2. There are better options for me to pay content creators? If you aren't interested in my 'preference' you lose out. The customer is just trying to have a no…
> Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods.
You realize that this has been tried and widely deemed a failure, right? Paywalls are a problem because they actively drive your audience away to next-best alternatives.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#224I find these things interesting, but not so much I won't use an adblocker. Perhaps I can buy into this and allow google ads, and then block the resulting 'thanks' text. I don't need that either. I find the whole thing odd though. I never click ads when I do see them, I literally have never, ever bought anything through advertising links. Even without an adblocker, the only reason the site would be getting money from…
> I am literally a worthless view to them. Well,you don't decide your own worth in this system. Your first mistake is assuming the only usefulness they get from you is when you click on an ad to buy something. That's a very naive view of advertising.
Yeah I think he can determine his buying habits far better than you.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#225This is fascinating. Business model: annoy people so much that they pay you to stop annoying them. Everybody's been talking about the death of display ads, and it looks like Google's paying attention and trying to figure out how to marginalize the ad itself, but still take money on the transaction. Eventually, Google could probably marginalize the ad so much that there are only a rare few display ads left online, and…
The ads aren't there purely to annoy people, they're there to support the content you'd otherwise pay for. The idea of paying them instead of getting ads is also a way to support that content.
I pay for Cable TV -- and its riddled with ads.
Recall back in the early 80s - the idea was to pay for TV so you wouldnt have ads...
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#226I find these things interesting, but not so much I won't use an adblocker. Perhaps I can buy into this and allow google ads, and then block the resulting 'thanks' text. I don't need that either. I find the whole thing odd though. I never click ads when I do see them, I literally have never, ever bought anything through advertising links. Even without an adblocker, the only reason the site would be getting money from…
I'm pretty tired of one of these personalities that appear to be a loud voice in the ad blocking conversation. "Ad's don't work on me and I have never ever been positively influenced in any way every by one" This simply makes you, at best, look naive in your believe that your conscious self is responsible for all (or even a majority) of your actions, and at worst, wrong/lying (who remembers everything they've ever pu…
>> This simply makes you, at best, look naive in your believe that your conscious self is responsible for all (or even a majority) of your actions
And I'm pretty tired of advertising.
Incidentally this subconscious effect is one of the best possible reasons to block ads. I think that regardless of commercial considerations, pushing your brand that way is underhand and actually evil.
>> wrong/lying (who remembers everything they've ever purchased and how they came to know about it?)
I'm not claiming I have always taken this view, so I'm not really required to remember everything I've ever purchased, but I do take the view that our purchases are one of the few powers we consumers have. If I don't like your actions, be those unethical actions taken by the company or intrusive advertising, I won't buy your stuff.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am literally a worthless view to them Maybe that's true, but I'll bet you're influenced by it more than you think. When you consciously notice an ad and get irritated by it you won't buy, but there will be times when you subconsciously notice an ad and do nothing about it. Many advertisers are smarter than people give them credit for.
>> there will be times when you subconsciously notice an ad and do nothing about it. Many advertisers are smarter than people give them credit for. And this sort of brain-hacking is precisely the reason I find advertising unacceptable and will not allow my computer to render ads.
How do you avoid that brain hackery when it comes to commercials(TV, radio, etc), billboards, ads in magazine's/newspapers, and hundreds of other sources?
I get being uncomfortable with trackers, but the mind of paranoia associated with the passive and active effects of ads is a joke considering this shit has been a common part of modern society for a long time.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I said, particularly with web advertising, if you've made me notice your brand then I will actively try to remember not to buy from you - I dislike advertising that much. By viewing the ad I'm not ripping anyone off, no, but a page taking money for me viewing an ad would be, as the outcome for the advertiser is getting a best neutral and likely actually negative.
Most people do not behave as you claim to. Advertising really does work. It's rational and has well-demonstrated ROI. You're either an outlier in terms of behavior, or you're not offering an honest representation of how you react to ads.
Advertising only has to work on a fraction of the population for it to have a positive ROI.
Penis pill emails have a well demonstrated ROI as well.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand the question. It's up to each publisher to decide if they make enough on AdSense to justify putting its ads on their site. The success of Google's ad business suggests that even net of fees, many people still think it's worth it. Now, personally, I don't think Google pays me enough to run AdSense on any of my sites. It's frankly not even close, so the fee isn't the issue -- it's just a bad f…
Well, I understand an organization that sets up a network where content creators get paid incurs some costs. I was curious as to what people think is the appropriate amount of fees they should charge for that service.
Google's costs and fees are irrelevant to the content creator. They want the ad network that writes the biggest check each month, not the one with the lowest operating overhead.
In fact there are many niche ad networks with fees much higher than Google, but they actually pay publishers more because they also charge the advertisers much more.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#230I find these things interesting, but not so much I won't use an adblocker. Perhaps I can buy into this and allow google ads, and then block the resulting 'thanks' text. I don't need that either. I find the whole thing odd though. I never click ads when I do see them, I literally have never, ever bought anything through advertising links. Even without an adblocker, the only reason the site would be getting money from…
I'm pretty tired of one of these personalities that appear to be a loud voice in the ad blocking conversation. "Ad's don't work on me and I have never ever been positively influenced in any way every by one" This simply makes you, at best, look naive in your believe that your conscious self is responsible for all (or even a majority) of your actions, and at worst, wrong/lying (who remembers everything they've ever pu…
I agree with you about branding adverts, but isn't the purpose of text ads to click through?